Indra on supporting Mukti Bahni terrorist..

[somebozo]

Yah I'm talking about before Pakistan had nuclear weapons, which is when Khalistan issue was raging on. Pakistan knew its conventional disparity all the more back then (esp because of 1971)....so could not do anything beyond a certain limit, for fear of its own destruction.

Now it has nuclear weapons to try buy it some time w.r.t India. Hence India can't take action regarding the Parliament attack, Mumbai etc....and continued Kashmir strategy (since Khalistan has all but evaporated).

Its ok we will bide our time till we beef up to neuter that damocles sword effectively too. I mean a group of Pakistani analysts are saying that Pakistan is growing in real terms by about 3.1% now. All I can say is: Yowch....and you better give us your best game when we come for you later ...because you'll need it if you havent changed your attitude w.r.t us by then.

Failed logic..because back in 2001..Nuclear weapons were not ready for firing and even today they are just a deterrence factor..don't think PA would actually take them to battle field for use and invite the wrath of entire world against them..only tactical nukes are enough as a scare factor!

If your plan is to keep India on the thorn perpetually then I would say you are succeeding....but also you are paying a high price for it...but if your goal is complete separation of Kashmir(like EP in 71) I don't see it happening anytime soon...India had the geographical and strategic advantage both in 71 and now...Bangladesh war was a when and how issue...as when will the war end and how it will be won....Kashmir is a how long issue...it is how long either of you can survive...and financially they have an advantage...diplomatically they are gaining advantage day by day. Now for arguments sake lets say India will never give up because they can afford it...so the question is will Pakistan ever give up...if so when...if not how do you plan to pay for it?(The price here is not only money...but lives,resources and sacrificing overall stability of the country)

Kashmir insurgency is very much self sufficient and unlike the Afghan mujaheddin it does not need a lifeline from Rawalpindi to Sri Nagar...Pakistan only needs to give popular and moral support to freedom fighters..

Indians should not use their moral compass to point Pakistan for its actions in Kashmir and Afghanistan...

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has reacted angrily to comments made by India's prime minister that reportedly acknowledged Indian forces had a role in the war that created Bangladesh, part of Pakistan until 1971 when separatists won independence after a war.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said during a recent visit to Dhaka that his country had a role in that war.
In a Tuesday statement, the foreign ministry said it was regrettable that Indian politicians take pride in recalling India's interference in the internal affairs of other states.
It said Indian attempts to "sow seeds of discord between the two brotherly nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh will not succeed".

 

[somebozo]

Where is your source for the assertion your nuclear weapons were not ready for firing? The US detected Pakistan arming its nuclear option way back in Kargil conflict in 1999....two whole years before 2001.

That only means rubbish because Pakistan has always iterated its commitment to no first attack..

Copied from comments section of another site

Lot of indian officials and almost 80% people don't know about the Pakistan geography. Only 23% of Pakistan land is arable. Pakistan have 3 deserts. Most of the North, North West and West of Pakistan is non-habitable (more than 40% of total pakistan area) and have mountain ranges, plateau, this is earthquake zone. Even all of the nukes of USA and Russia use on that region, it will not effect any thing. Alexandr the Great, Arabs, Mogul, Great Britain, USSR and now USA have defeated on that region. Majority of Pakistani urban population living very closeby the indian border within 140 miles radius except Quetta (262 miles). Islamabad (2nd most beautiful capital of the world) is just 58 miles away from the india. More than 2/3 population living in small town, rural and remote areas. In middle of the Pakistan from North to South, there is indus basin wet land area (flood zone area). Use the nuke on that region will also not gain any benefit. Due to potential full-fledged war, they already disperse their population. There are only 12 cities (less than 1/3 of total Pakistani population), whose population are more than 1 million. Excluding Quetta all 11 cities are nearby the Indian border. Lets assume India will use medium size nuke 125KT which can destroy 20 sq. miles area. The total pakistan area is 307,374 sq. miles. Since, Pakistan has already disbursed his population in very small town, villages and remote area. Therefore, india will need atleast 15,369 nuclear bomb along with delivery method/missiles to reduce the risk of 2nd and 3rd strike. Due to the very short distance, the radiation will also be traveled to indian border cities/town. On the other side, India has 50 cities whose population are 1 million or more. It is easy to say nuclear war but hard to digest the reality. Now, you can easily think, how much damage Pakistan can make on his first nuclear strike. The odd is in Pakistan favor for 1st strike 12 cities to 50 cities. The surprise factor from the Pakistan would be multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) system; that is the actual US President concern.

 

[somebozo]

"Pakistan's National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz defended the policy of first use.[32] Aziz stated that Pakistan's first use doctrine is entirely deterrent in nature. He explained that it was effective after the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and argued that if Pakistan had a no-first use policy, there would have been a major war between the two countries.[32]"

Yes after the 2001 attack the policy changed..so it nullifies your argument that Pakistan was readying the nukes in 1999 to launch them on India...So still your argument holds no logic.. We should have an intelligence based criteria for promotion members to senior statu

 

[Apprentice]

Do our Indian friends here know that none of the Kashmiri mujahideen groups are fighting Pakistan?

Lakshar e Taiba, Hizbul Mujahideen and Jaish e Muhammad, the main groups fighting in Kashmir are fiercely loyal to Pakistan.

Can Indians name a single Kashmiri mujahideen group fighting against Pakistan?

None of the groups which Pakistan created are fighting Pakistan today. Not even the Afghan Taliban.

The only group at war with the Pakistani state is TTP. Which is not the same as the Afghan Taliban nor is it a creation of Pakistan.

So Indians should stop using the fake argument that there is terrorism im Pakistan because of Pak's support to the Kashmiri mujahideen. Repeating such unsubstantiated claims reflects poorly on their intellects.

 

[Jf Thunder]

India Gandhi was a great leader. To paraphrase Stanley Wolpert, "Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. India Gandhi did all three."

oh wow, re-phrasing a quote from a historian said about Mr Jinnah, thats very nice and brave of you, but its ok, if it helps you sleep better at night.

People in India praise her like anything for her roll in 1971 indo pak war. She is given equql credit like Sam Manekshwa and General Jacob.

The one who was given an old rusted out pistol taken from an MP? which he thought to be Gen A A K Niazi's honorary pistol? damn it that Niazi had a great sense of humor, we had to pay a heavy price, but he got the last laugh LOL

Yup,innocuous...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chengiz_Khan

That was the start of Formal war.

apparently our high command was sleeping, India had invaded East Pakistan long before, which according to International Law should have been the start of a formal war.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Too bad he was crying when signing the surrender document. Guess that wasn't so funny now was it.

i could see his tears, damn :/
and Jacob was thinking "Damn, he f*cked me even after the surrender"

 

[jaunty]

India Gandhi was a great leader. To paraphrase Stanley Wolpert, "Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. India Gandhi did all three."

She was not a great PM domestically but she was an incredibly courageous woman and managed to change the course of history against all odds. Imagine having Pakistan on both East and West, India would have been in real danger of losing the NE.

 

[Perpendicular]

Beware,Losers can't be chooser.
We're victorious,and I want to show you what Pakistan's response on that day....

The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[SQ8]

Its funny they even compare Kashmir and East Pakistan. Last time I checked I can visit Srinagar with my Indian passport....is just a Pakistan passport sufficient to visit Dhaka these days?

Anyways, its best to avoid the trollfest and flame baiting with these butthurt guys in Pakistan....and just keep adding 1 whole Pakistan to our GDP each year and make that 2 or more in the years to come....and deal with them decisively down the road at the appropriate time.

Might makes right.



Pushback on Pakistan would have been the end of its political existence. Pakistan knew where the limit lay and tried its best within that realm....similar to how they didn't declare outright war on the USSR during the Afghan civil war....they aren't that stupid and foolish....especially after they got royally burned in 1971.

The uidioicy in this post had me comment in places where I kept quiet. Perhaps it is actual idiocy or it is selective hypocrisy.
Either way, prior to 71 one could go to East Pakistan on a Pakistani passport; but being the Indian on our forum it has been washed over with almost childish ignorance.

Then, the gentleman has the guile to claim to avoid trolling and flaming while putting very inflammatory remarks in his post.
So like I said, either a idiot or a hypocrite.. Id say the latter.. as is typical for his pithy kind.
Banned from thread and warned.

@Joe Shearer Have you ever heard of the Hyesons group?
https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1976KARACH05280_b.html

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Indra defending the same actions for which India accuses Pakistan today in Indian occupied Kashmir..

In this world what really matters is SUCCESS

We succeeded in Bangladesh ; you have failed in Kashmir

Today the whole world YAWNS when Kashmir issue is raised

 

[Stag112]

She was not a great PM domestically but she was an incredibly courageous woman and managed to change the course of history against all odds. Imagine having Pakistan on both East and West, India would have been in real danger of losing the NE.

Yes even in the 50s and 60s East Pakistan kept causing serious trouble in NE with the help of future papa china. Pakistanis selectively forget that when they cry about 1971.

As always they started something they could not finish, and we had to do it in 1971.

Other such examples include,

Start Kashmir - annexation of Hyderabad by India

Operation Gibralter - defence of Lahore

Issuing permits to Siachen - lose Siachen

Attack siachen - lose qaid i mean bana post

Kargil - get owned

Even in cricket block pak players from IPL 2 - bye bye cricket

Etc etc.... Indira played her part very well in 1971. Yes congress domestic rule has been a curse though.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Yes even in the 50s and 60s East Pakistan kept causing serious trouble in NE with the help of future papa china. Pakistanis selectively forget that when they cry about 1971.

As always they started something they could not finish, and we had to do it in 1971.

Just to add, it was actually done on behalf of China.

Post 1962, Chinese were desperately attempting to support NE insurgencies, however were unable to do so due the logistical difficulties. Hence outsourced it to Pakistan, which willingly accepted and the rest is history.

 

[dray]

Indra's immature reactions in East-Pakistan gave West-Pakistan a whole lot new awakening towards its defense..it propelled Pakistan on the fore front of Mujahideen support in Afghanistan which continues to be a terrorist menace today, fast track developments of nuclear bomb, pull China closer in its foreign policy...

Basically you are saying that Indira changed the future course of West Pakistan also, for worse.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Basically you are saying that Indira changed the future course of West Pakistan also, for worse.

That is True

The whole Zia Ul Haq Islamisation campaign came AFTER 1971

They realised that Ethnic feelings and language can cause a split as it happened in 1971

So to counter it they became MORE religious --hardliners-- but that led to extremism and terrorism

 

[GR!FF!N]

apparently our high command was sleeping, India had invaded East Pakistan long before, which according to International Law should have been the start of a formal war.

If according to you,supporting an insurgent group=Invasion,then Pakistan probably invaded Afghanistan,Iran,India,China and a dozen other countries across the world.